Question

Very often, while studying a Talmudic passage, there are cases where the Talmud states a law or principle (or derivation) that some understand in a more straightforward way, and some commentators indeed take it that way—as tools of the Talmud, without making overly conceptual distinctions—while later authorities (especially the more recent later authorities) give it a more principled and logical meaning, one that explains all the laws in a smoother way…
My inclination is always to gladly adopt the more rational explanations, and in every halakhic question to decide according to that reasoning… 
There’s a friend of mine who always argues that it isn’t right to adopt the explanation that seems more logical. After all, we accepted the authority of the Talmud, so one should always look in the Talmud for some indication of the explanation being offered, and even if there is no contradiction, these explanations seem to add to the understanding of the Talmud. Also, the medieval authorities (Rishonim) often didn’t mention these rational understandings either…
Another friend always argues against him that we accepted the authority of the Talmud, and therefore if there is an explanation that accounts for the Talmud’s law in a more logical way, it should be adopted, and it’s not so important to search in the Talmud and the medieval authorities (Rishonim) for how they understood the Talmudic text; as long as it doesn’t contradict the Talmud, that’s fine…
What does the Rabbi think?